Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND AND LITHUANIA.

Mr. Noel-Baker: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present dispute between Poland and Lithuania, His Majesty's Government will immediately summon the Council of the League of Nations under Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, and will propose that the Council should adopt the procedure by which, in a similar dispute, war between Bulgaria and Greece was averted in October, 1925.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that the Polish Government have delivered an ultimatum to the Lithuanian Government, including the conditions which they consider indispensable for the avoidance of future incidents, with a time-limit of 36 hours. His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw has pressed upon the Polish Government their hope that this question will not be used as a pretext for making wider demands. His Majesty's Government are in touch with both Governments concerned. They are not at present satisfied that the course the hon. Member suggests would be sufficiently speedy to be practicable or the best that could be adopted. They are, however, keeping close watch on developments.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the case of the

Greco-Bulgarian dispute, largely on the initiative of the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Austen Chamberlain, the Council met within the 36 hours and immediately dispatched a Commission of impartial military officers to ensure that the fighting was stopped, and subsequently a commission of inquiry also, which brought a settlement within three weeks; and does he not consider that, in view of the grave dangers of another conflict in Europe, it is essential that the Council of the League should meet when ultimata of this kind are presented?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think it is essential. In the present case I am not satisfied that the results which would follow on such a meeting would be such as the hon. Member has in mind.

Captain McEwen: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in the Greco-Bulgarian dispute to which reference has been made a settlement was arrived at by means of conciliation alone?

Captain Ramsay: Would not the chances of European peace be increased if hon. Members opposite would stop their propaganda?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Greco-Bulgarian dispute it was made perfectly plain in the course of the proceedings in the first three days that the Covenant was going to be upheld?

Mr. Gallacher: Does the Prime Minister mean that they will keep on watching events until a new war has started, and do nothing about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to communicate to the House on the bombing of Barcelona.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I regret to inform the House that, according to a report received this morning from His Majesty's Minister at Barcelona, Barcelona was subjected to six air raids in the course of Wednesday night and the early part of yesterday. The casualties have been very heavy and were estimated at the time to have amounted to not less than 240 dead and 400 injured.

Mr. Attlee: Is it clear that this was directed with a view to terrorism on the civilian population and not at military objectives?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the statement which I have just read out, which comes from the Minister, does not contain anything to that effect, but the reports which I have seen in the Press do appear to describe the damage as being done largely to living quarters and not to military objectives. In any case, I do not think anybody can have read these reports without horror and digust.

Mr. T. Williams: Since it is now generally recognised that the non-intervention policy has not been observed, will the Government consider the advisability of allowing anti-aircraft guns to be exported to Spain in order to avoid this bombing?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: May I ask whether the Government will not immediately draw the attention of the Vatican authorities to the appalling sufferings caused to these civilians and ask them to make representations to the Spanish insurgent authorities?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, His Majesty's Government and the French Government have agreed upon an appeal to both parties in Spain to stop bombardments of this character, and the French Government have now approached the Vatican with a view to obtaining their association in any appeal they may make.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the enormous casualties arising out of these bombardments, will the Prime Minister consider making a further grant out of public funds to aid the supply of medical necessaries and medical personnel?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask whether the Prime Minister is not satisfied now that the bombing planes which have been bombing Barcelona are German and Italian?

Mr. James Griffiths: In the event of the Franco Government refusing the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman this time, as they did last time, will His Majesty's Government reconsider the necessity of providing the Spanish Government with anti-aircraft guns?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGULATION) BILL.

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is expedient that the Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

WELSH CHURCH (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Welsh Church (Amendment) Bill [Lords] with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 107.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

11.12 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clauses 1, 2 and 7 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Kingsley Wood.
Perhaps it would be convenient and useful at this stage of the Bill if I explained the object of the re-committal and at the same time indicated the scope of my Amendments. As I promised on the Committee stage of the Bill, I have given careful consideration to the Amendment to give to certain rural districts the special supplement of £1 in addition to the ordinary £5 10s., and have in particular carefully studied what has been said by hon. Members in all parts of the House on this matter. I want to ensure that there is no misapprehension as to the effect of Clause 1, Sub-section (3) of the Bill, and of the Motion and Amendments which stand in my name. The House may recollect that when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I said:
Clause 1 (3) contains a new provision which will authorise a supplementary Exchequer contribution of £1 for 40 years over and above the ordinary contribution of £5 10s. accompanied by an equivalent contribution of £1 from the county council—to meet the needs of a limited number of small urban areas with exceptional conditions.
I also added:
We are bound to lay down these conditions which may be indicated as follow: (1) a general level of working-class rents substantially below those applicable to the working classes in urban areas generally, and (2) the very limited financial resources of those districts.
I concluded those observations by saying:
The number of districts that will satisfy these conditions will not be large, but experience has shown a real need for special assistance of this kind."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1736, Vol. 331.]
On the Committee stage I was pressed to reconsider the limitation in the Bill of the supplements of £1 for each house from the Exchequer and the County Council to the ordinary contribution of

£5 10s., and I undertook to do so before the Report stage. Later on, during the Committee stage of the Bill, I was asked to extend the advantage of the special subsidy under Clause 2 of the Bill for cottages for the agricultural population to urban districts as well as to rural districts. After careful consideration, I agreed to do this, and the suggestion was adopted by the Committee. I feel that substantial subsidy for cottages for the agricultural population will enable rural districts generally to deal adequately with their housing requirements by the provision of the houses needed and at appropriate rents, but after reviewing such evidence as is available and weighing all that has been said, I have come to the conclusion that there may still remain some few rural districts which, by reason of their limited financial resources and the generally low level of ordinary working-class rents in their districts, cannot without this additional aid satisfy their full housing needs.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how that will affect Scotland?

Sir K. Wood: The Bill does not apply to Scotland. Although there is no desire to exclude such cases by a statutory bar from consideration, it will be observed that it is in a special combination of circumstances that the special supplement will be given. When the special conditions are satisfied they justify, I think, the Amendments which I shall move in Committee to include rural districts on the same terms as urban districts. This Motion and the Amendments standing in my name carry that into effect with the necessary modification that the standard of rental comparison for rural districts will be that of other rural districts. I hope that the House will feel I have met what it was desired I should do in this matter.

11.17 a.m.

Sir Percy Hurd: May I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for the acceptance of this Amendment which is similar to one that I moved on the Committee stage and which met with a large measure of support. May I go any further at this stage?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may go further when we get into Committee.

Question,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clauses 1, 2 and 7 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Kingsley Wood,
put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(General provision for contributions in respect of housing accommodation provided by local authorities.)

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(4) The last preceding subsection shall have effect in relation to any proposals of the council of a rural district to provide any housing accommodation to which this section applies, as that subsection has effect in relation to proposals of the council of any non-county borough or urban district, subject however to the modification that for any reference in that subsection to the borough or district council, to the borough or district, or to non-county boroughs and urban districts there shall be substituted a reference to the rural district council, to the rural district or to rural districts, as the case may be.

11.19 a.m.

Sir P. Hurd: I wish to thank the Minister for this Amendment. It is, in substance, the Amendment we moved when the Bill was in Committee, when it received a large measure of support. We wish that the Minister had been able to adopt the interpretation of the words "agricultural population" in the same sense as that in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1936, but he has not been able to do that. We thank him, however, for this Amendment, by which he brings rural district councils into the same category as urban district councils, and not county boroughs, when dealing with this extra encouragement for the housing, not only of agricultural workers in the strict sense of the term, but of rural workers generally. On behalf of the Rural District Councils' Association, which speaks for the councils of England and Wales, I wish to thank the Minister for his acceptance of the Amendment, to congratulate him on the Measure as a whole, and to assure him that the rural districts will do their utmost to give full effect to this provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.21 a.m.

Mr. Tinker: This Clause deals with the grants to be made by the Treasury and the local authorities, and provides that the grants from the Treasury shall be for a period of 40 years, and those from local authorities for 60 years. I would like to ask what will happen about the payment of these grants if something happens to the houses? They have to be sanctioned by the Minister of Health, but, after a time, owing to their being on land under which mining is taking place, they collapse and become derelict before all the money has been paid. Who will then find the money? I have in my possession a picture taken in my constituency of a number of houses which were built under Government grant. They collapsed after ten or 15 years and have now become derelict. If that happens to houses under this Bill, who will be liable to find the money for them? I am in quandary, because this week-end I am going to my constituency and I shall be met by this question. My constituents will want to know what steps are being taken to protect the inhabitants and the local authorities against this kind of thing happening. It is a grave position, and when we are putting a new Bill on the Statute Book we should be in a position to know what will be done in the event of similar things taking place. It will be an almost impossible position to ask ratepayers to pay something towards buildings which have passed out of existence because of subsidence.
There is another question. Sub-section (4) deals with the categories of houses which will be provided, and in paragraph (a, ii) it is explained that they will be houses to replace others which are unfit for human habitation and are not capable of being rendered fit for human habitation at reasonable expense. In the case of the houses to which I have referred, which are now falling into a state of desolation, can a further grant be obtained in respect of the same persons, who now have to leave these other houses because of what has happened? In mining areas subsidence is a constant menace to the houses which have been built out of money provided by the local authorities and the Treasury, and what


I am trying to find out is whether it is possible to force those who are responsible for the destruction of those houses to make good the loss which has been caused by the mining subsidences.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I wish to call attention to a similar situation in my own division. The Amendment which has just been accepted by the Minister puts rural councils on the same basis as urban district councils and county councils. My division embraces a rural area in which several pits have recently closed down, being worked out, and subsidence is setting in rapidly. One council has built houses in this area, and two of these comparatively new houses have had to be taken down on account of subsidence, and the council is faced with heavy expense. In rural and semi-rural areas where there are disused pits heavy burdens are being imposed on the local authorities as a consequence of subsidence, and sooner or later something will have to be done to meet that situation. Both the State and the local authorities are undertaking heavy expenditure upon building in those areas where subsidence will certainly occur before the houses have been up for many years, and in spite of the damage to the houses payments in respect of them will have to continue over a period of 50 to 60 years. I want the Minister to realise that we have here a position which must be dealt with at an early date, because otherwise many rural councils will be crippled.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. David Adams: I should like to amplify what has been said on this subject in view of the situation prevailing in the county of Durham. The Minister will know from the discussions which took place on the Coal Bill how serious the position is as regards subsidence, and County Durham is more honeycombed with colliery workings than, probably, any other part of the country, not excepting South Wales. The local authority there has been driven to build a considerable number of houses upon land where the possibility of subsidence occurring is admitted on all hands.

The Chairman: I cannot see how the hon. Member can connect this speech with the Clause which is under discussion.

Mr. Adams: Surely we are dealing with the position in areas which are affected by subsidences, and will certainly be affected by subsidences in future. It has been drawn to my notice by several local authorities in County Durham and by private individuals, and associations have been set up for the purpose of dealing with this particular difficulty, and what I desire to know is what protection there will be for a local authority which has been driven to use for housing sites land where there is every probability that subsidence will take place. Will there be some protection afforded to the local authority in the event of such subsidence occurring and damaging the property of the municipality.

The Chairman: A question was asked on this point and I thought that was a little outside the limits of possible discussion on this Clause on recommittal, but the hon. Member is now getting very far beyond anything which is in the Clause.

11.31 a.m.

Sir K. Wood: I will endeavour briefly to explain the position in this matter. This Clause, of course, follows generally the lines of previous housing legislation As regards the method of payment of subsidy, one has to adopt one of two courses—either to make a lump sum payment or to adopt the course which has been generally followed, as in this Bill, of extending the payments over a period of years, with contributions from the State and from the local authorities. The payment of a lump sum at the beginning would mean loss of control altogether, and the other method is regarded as the more practicable and convenient method. Under the present housing operations of local authorities the payments from the Exchequer go into a housing pool, and it is wise to remember that it is not a case of a payment made in respect of a particular house. To put it in another way, the payment does not follow a particular house, but is made in respect of a number of houses, and on that account the money goes into a general housing pool. Even if the property were empty or for other reasons ceased to be in existence, the payments would still go on.
The hon. Member has raised the general question of subsidence which, of course, concerns not only housing problems but arises in connection with factories, and


the general reply so far as local authorities are concerned can be said to be this: that obviously a local authority and a colliery company have to be considered in relation to one another in any particular matter that may arise. It would be a question, upon which I could not make any comment now, of whether in any particular case a local authority would have a right of action against a colliery company in respect of subsidence. That is really the legal position. So far as this Bill is concerned, it follows the usual course and makes no alteration in the existing law.

Mr. G. Macdonald: In the case to which I have referred the two houses have gone altogether and no rents are being received at all, but I understand that for the remainder of the period the local authority will have to continue paying the full amount in respect of them. They have lost the houses and they cannot get rent, but they will have to continue to pay.

Sir K. Wood: Yes, and so will the State. The position appears to be rather curious at first sight, but when it is realised that the money is coming out of the housing pool, I think it does put rather a different complexion on the situation.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: Subsidence has been one of the worst features of the housing problem in mining areas, and although it is very difficult, it is perhaps a little easier now than it was, because modern transport enables people to live not quite so much on top of the pit. It is, therefore, largely a matter of planning. It ought to be easier in future than it has been in the past in such Bills as this to deal with this problem. The House is considering a Measure to bring whole royalties under one control, and it should be possible in future, therefore, to have closer co-operation between the Ministry of Health and whatever body has control of the coal, in order that much of this difficulty might be avoided.

Mr. Tinker: I should like to get one point clear. Will houses unfit for human habitation and left empty, but in respect of which there has been Government grant under another housing scheme, come under the Bill, and can the people

who are put out now apply to the Council to come under the scheme of the present Bill?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, provided the houses are demolished under the Housing Acts.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by local authorities.)

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 3, leave out "and."

In line 4, after "sixty-nine," insert "and Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and seventy-two."

In line 7, leave out "a reference," and insert "references."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(County councils' contributions.)

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 29, leave out "non-county borough or urban," and insert "county."

In line 37, leave out from the third "the," to "forms," in line 38, and insert "county district."

In line 42, leave out "of the borough or urban district or to the council."

In line 43, leave out "as the case may be."—[Sir Kingsley Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, in Committee and on recommittal, considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by persons other than local authorities.)

11.42 a.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out "some person other than the council," and to insert:
a society, body of trustees, or company to which this Section applies.
In the event of this Amendment being agreed to there is a further Amendment


which proposes a definition of the society, and it will be found further down on the Order Paper. The reason for moving the Amendment is to make it impossible for the tied-house system to be started or perpetuated under the Bill. The principle at present in the Bill is to provide a strong inducement to the landowner to provide a house in order to get the subsidy, the purpose of which is intended to be to induce the provision of the house. I am arguing that it is more likely that the provision will work the other way round. If that should be so, as we believe it will, the Bill gives the landowner inevitably a very undesirable hold over his employé quite apart from the principle of a subsidy going to a private individual.
The argument used on Second Reading in order to get the principle accepted was that we needed to keep labour on the land and that it would be an inducement in that direction if houses were provided for the agricultural labourer either by the local authority or, as the Clause proposes, by some person. That is not the way to keep labour on the land. The inducement to that end should rather be in the form of wages and working conditions than by the provision of a house. I think it should be recognised that the agricultural labourer is a human being capable of entering into the social life of the community, and that provision should be made for him to get away from his work periodically, in order that he may take his share in other departments of life than simply that of agricultural work. I believe we should do more to keep the agricultural labourer on the land and happy in his work by providing a means for his getting away from it occasionally than by tying him to it in this way. I speak from some little experience, at any rate, as a farm labourer. I worked for at least three years in that capacity, and, speaking as one who was very pleased to leave the land because of its lack of facilities for entering into other departments of social life, I want to put in a plea on his behalf for more variety. I think that, if the question of the farm labourer is studied from the standpoint of providing amenities other than by simply providing what I regard as an essential, namely, a good house for him to live in, it would be a better way of serving his interests.
The assumption has always been, and still seems to be, in this House at any rate, judging from the Debates to which I have listened, that all that the farm labourer desires is an opportuntity to cultivate a piece of land of his own after he has finished his daily work, and the suggestion is often made that he should be provided with a piece of land. I suggest that the House might begin to think along the line that, when an individual has spent 10 or 11, or it may be 12 hours on the land already, it would be advantageous for him to be found some other occupation than that of putting in his spare time in cultivating that to which he has been attached throughout the whole day. I know the assumption has been that he is too poor to enter into other types of enjoyment, and that is perfectly true. Again I speak from experience. One is bound to put in one's time on the land, because, if one has no money to spend, it is the only place where, perhaps, some little enjoyment can be found without somebody wanting to be paid for it. I suggest, however, that from this point of view we should do more to aid the agricultural labourer than by simply trying to tie him to the land.
Another fault that I have to find with the Clause, and another reason why we are seeking to amend it along these lines, is that there is no stipulation in the Act or in the Bill that a condition of drawing the subsidy shall be that the individual who provides the house shall not make a profit out of it. The rent is determined, I know, under Sub-section (1, b) of Clause 3, as
the value at which the benefit or advantage of a cottage is to be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of payment in cash.
What does that mean? It means that the landowner gets a house valued at £330 as a free gift after 40 years. The interest which, I am given to understand, represents a reasonable price at which money can be obtained to-day, is roughly speaking, on £300, £10 per year. That is the amount of the subsidy. In addition, the landowner gets the power to keep a stranglehold on the labourer, because he owns the house in which the man lives, and the principal condition of his continuing to live in the house is that he must continue to work for the landowner. It might be suggested that the landowner


is not receiving anything in the way of capital charge for the 40 years, but I suggest to the House that the rent which is taken into consideration in the wage of the agricultural labourer would, over a period of 40 years, just about meet the capital value which the landowner is called upon to find; so that to all intents and purposes it is not the agricultural labourer who is receiving the benefit, but the landowner himself, who, at the end of 40 years, becomes the owner of a property for which the agricultural labourer and the State have jointly paid, the one out of his wages and the other by way of the subsidy.
This is not helping the agricultural labourer at all. It is not subsidising the agricultural labourer. The point has been made in this House that it is in the interests of the agricultural labourer that this provision is made, that it is in the interests of the agricultural labourer that these persons are to be called upon, in the event of the council not providing houses, or rather, if the council desire them to provide houses. It has been suggested that it is for the benefit of the labourer that this legislation is being passed. I suggest to the House, however, that it is not subsidising the agricultural labourer, but subsidising the landowner. It is not the labourer who is getting the advantage, but the landowner, who gets, not only the ownership of the property at the end of a period, but during the whole time has a stranglehold upon the labourer, in that he nominally owns the house. Although it has not yet been paid for, he is not paying anything towards it in effect, and he is given a stranglehold over the labourer because of the fact that it is to all intents and purposes a tied cottage. Therefore, no plea can be made in justification of this particular proposal in the Bill.
If you are in earnest about wanting the labourer to have this advantage, I suggest that there is no alternative to accepting this Amendment. Otherwise, it must be definitely intended that the advantage should go to the landowner and that the labourer should be regarded as but a secondary consideration. On the basis that you want the labourer to have this advantage, the Amendment provides all that is not provided in the Bill. Its purpose is to take out the provision whereby an individual may provide the

house, and substitute a housing association or a body which is constituted for the purpose of house-building, or which has in its rules and regulations as one of its objects the purpose of house-building, and is limited in that it cannot pay more than a reasonable amount of interest on its loan and share capital. During the Debate on the Rent Restrictions Bill, we heard quite a number of Members on the opposite Benches speaking about the advantages of housing associations. If there is an advantage in a housing association, I suggest that, if there is earnestness behind the plea that the housing association should be given an opportunity, here is a first-rate opportunity. It is the alternative, if an alternative is needed. We suggested on the Second Reading that there need be no alternative, but that it was the duty of the local council to provide the houses, and we believe that the local council would provide the houses. But here is the alternative, if alternative be needed, to the local council, and we have suggested, in an Amendment which will come later if this principle is accepted, that the authority should be defined as:
any society, body of trustees, or company established for the purpose of, or amongst whose objects or powers are included those of, constructing, or facilitating or encouraging the construction of dwelling-houses for the working-classes, being a society, body of trustees, or company which does not trade for profit or whose constitution prohibits the use of any share or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury.
That definitely prevents the setting up of bodies which have for their object the undue making of money out of these proposals. Such bodies, I submit, would have no power over the tenant, because they would not be the employers of the tenant. Such houses would not be tied houses. That would be a great advantage because of the disadvantages which, I think, everybody realises are associated with the tied-house system. The labourer, under the Amendment, would have some measure of freedom, whereas the labourer in a tied house has none. The individual who is compelled to work upon the land because he lives in a certain house is definitely tied practically for all time. The wages he receives, the conditions under which he lives, make it well-nigh impossible for him to get away, and you would tie him in a very real sense by the provision made in this Bill. Such a


measure of freedom as he would be given under the Amendment would not leave the Government open to the charge of having handed over money from the Exchequer to their friends. If the Bill is passed, the charge cannot be refuted that, at the expense of the agricultural labourer and the State, jointly, the Government are making a present to every individual who comes forward now to build a house.

11.57 a.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot claim to have been an agricultural labourer; my work has been underground and not above ground. But the Minister, I think, should consider the Amendment. From the way that he worded the Clause, it is evident that he sees difficulties. The Clause says:
Where the council of a county district are satisfied that in any particular case housing accommodation required for members of the agricultural population of the district could more conveniently be provided by some person other than the council, …
He realises that, as things are to-day, this Clause would mean a continuance of the tied system. In my division there are people living under the tied system, and they make serious complaints about it. I can quite see that there are times when the rural district council would think that somebody else could do this job better than they, and if that situation should arise, it ought to be possible for the district to decide accordingly. I fully appreciate the Minister's purpose: but we think the way suggested in the Amendment is a better way for giving some elasticity to the county districts, which in many cases they will need, in order to carry out the Minister's desires. Our sole purpose is to achieve what he wants achieved. We do not think, however, that one person ought to be entrusted with the work, because we are afraid that that one person will be the farmer or landowner. The Minister might say, "Still, this is an elected body." I agree; but he knows that rural councils in the agricultural areas are, in the main, dominated by farming interests; and, in doing this, he is simply handing over the job to the farmers or landlords.
In order to dispel the suspicions hinted at by the Mover of the Amendment that this is something for the landlords, the

Minister should accept the Amendment. The landlords have done well for hundreds of years, but the agricultural labourer has certainly not done so well out of legislation. We ask the Minister to accept our Amendment. In doing so, he will realise his purpose, and will not create the suspicion which arises under the Clause as it now stands.

12.1 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: Both the hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken have put their case very clearly and persuasively, and I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has said. He sees the necessity for some such Clause as this, and this Amendment is put down from the point of view of administration. I will remind the House very briefly of the objects of this Clause, which I do not think has been sufficiently understood. It provides that, subject to certain conditions, to which I will refer in a few minutes, rural district councils may make arrangements for the provision of houses for the agricultural population by private enterprise, and that the Minister may pay to the rural district council a subsidy, not exceeding £10 a year for 40 years in respect of each house provided by private enterprise, and the subsidy paid by the Minister must be paid by the rural district council to the owner of the house for the time being. Three conditions are laid down. The first is, that this Clause is intended solely for members of the agricultural population; and, so far as letting is concerned, there is a very important provision, which, I think, disposes of some of the anxieties which have been mentioned, because it says:
if let, is let at a rent not exceeding—

(i) the weekly rent which, by any order of the appropriate agricultural wages committee in force at the time of the letting, is determined as the value at which the benefit or advantage of a cottage is to be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of payment in cash for the purpose of any minimum rate of wages fixed by the said committee under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, or
(ii) If no such rent is so determined, such weekly rent as may be determined by the council of the county district …",

and the third provision, a very necessary one—and the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) will appreciate this—is that they shall be of suitable size and construction. I would also like to mention what, I think, will allay some of


the apprehensions of the two hon. Members, that the subsidy is paid year by year, and if the conditions are not observed the subsidy finishes. This is a very drastic provision, and gives a great deal of power so far as the local authority is concerned. I would also add that this provision has been inserted in the Bill on the suggestion of the rural subcommittee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee. That sub-committee is a very important body. It included members of all parties and many experts on the housing situation. They said:
In a comparatively small number of cases, it may be necessary to build new houses on isolated farms for the accommodation of stockmen, etc. In view of their situation, such cottages will, we anticipate, only be suitable for the accommodation of the employés of the particular farm on which they are built. The local authority will not always be able conveniently to undertake the erection of houses in such a situation, and to meet this relatively small need, we suggest that a subsidy equal to the Exchequer subsidy which would be payable to the local authority should be made available to private enterprise in the form of annual payments over a period of 40 years on condition that the rents of the cottages erected shall not exceed the rent fixed for the area by the Agricultural Wages Board for new houses. 
I think it is clear that if I accepted this Amendment, it would limit the utility of the Clause, and, indeed, prevent its application to the very type of case which the Advisory Committee had primarily in mind in recommending an extension of the Exchequer subsidy. It is clear that the Amendment would defeat the object of the Clause, and I do not think it would even assist the provision of a single house if it were necessary to form a society of the kind referred to in the Amendment. I hope that, after the explanation which I have given, hon. Members opposite will not press this matter further. The Clause follows the recommendations of the Committee itself, and I do not think that it would be wise, and, indeed, it would very largely stultify the operation of the Clause to limit it in this way. The payment in this particular way was provided under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, which was administered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and I know that he found cases under the administration of that Act—I have certain instances before me now with which I need

not trouble the House—where difficulties could have arisen if the limitations of the amendment had applied.

Sir Percy Harris: If the tenant of a particular house ceased to be an agricultural labourer and an agricultural labourer was no longer required on the farm and the house was transferred to a visitor from the town, would the local authority automatically be able to withdraw the £10 a year?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, that is to say, that one of the conditions would not have been fulfilled. The local authority are in a strong position. It is not as if they made a large payment in advance. They make payments year by year, and if such a condition is not fulfilled, I do not allow the subsidy to be paid.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Whiteley: We on this side of the House do not really accept the explanation of the Minister as being entirely satisfactory. We believe that the reference to an individual in this Clause ought to be eliminated altogether. The Minister of Health, with his strength and determination, ought to be able so to guide local authorities that he should not have to look forward to any difficulty of this kind in leaving it to private enterprise to build individual houses or some groups of houses for this particular means. As the Minister has explained, he is not prepared to do that, but only to accept the provisions of Clause 3 as it stands at the present time. We come along with a further suggestion and say, "Here is the nation and the local authority paying a subsidy, and in the interests of the nation and of the people there ought to be a body of trustees to control the situation in order that the property might in the end come under the control of the local authority when the 40 years have expired." That is what we want the House to realise. We are not objecting to anything being put forward that will induce the provision of more and better houses for agricultural labourers. We are anxious that that should be done, but we are also anxious that, where national and local money is given for a particular purpose, there ough to be some measure of control, and in our opinion this Amendment would provide for it very forcibly.

12.10 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I should like to reply to what has been said on this matter, having been a member of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee to which the Minister so generously referred. We had before us the practicability and not the theoretical desirability of any proposal. It is not necessary to go into the prior question—that has been settled—as to whether it is necessary on occasion to have certain cottages actually on the farm. The question is, as the Minister said, one of administration. The proposal of the Amendment looks very well on paper and it appeals to many who, like the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), have had a great deal to do with private public utility societies. We have to know, when we look at the matter as a practical question, the people who will run such societies or be such trustees. It is useless to expect these public utility societies really to be effective in carrying on this kind of work unless they have favourable conditions for such work.
It is quite impracticable in an out-of-the-way district or village to form a public utility society which will effectively work on a few isolated cottages. The person running the utility would be the good landlord locally. If that be so, would he carry out the work better as an individual or as a public utility society? Obviously, he would do it better as an individual, and the local district council would probably prefer him to do it under his own authority and under the conditions laid down. The idea of forming a public utility society removed from remote villages is not really a practical suggestion. The Sub-Committee fully recognised the enormous advantages from the point of view of the agricultural labourers of having them resident in the villages rather than in a scattered area. It was not, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment suggested, in the interests of agricultural labourers that this matter was put forward, but in the interests of farming. Those who are engaged in farming realise how essential it is for stockmen and farm labourers to be near their work.
From this point of view the Rural Housing Sub-Committee strongly recommended that which is now before us in the Clause of the Bill. It is one that

we are very glad to see introduced into the Bill. It is essential for the continuance of agriculture in this country. It will not redound to the financial advantage of the land owner, but it will be an advantage to everybody concerned with agriculture to help on the proper working of the farm.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The Minister has tried to explain the Clause, as he did on the Second Reading. He made a good case as to why it should be continued as it is, but that has no altogether removed our fears. This provision will place into the hands of the landed or farming classes greater power than they now possess. We do not want to continue the system which prevails at the present time. There are examples in mining areas where the colliery company possess huge blocks of property, and we know very well what effect this sort of thing has on the minds of men when they desire to leave and go to another colliery. They realise that they will have to get out of their houses. Therefore, it is always a deterrent to a man when trying to improve his position when he knows that the housing accommodation, which he may like, will have to be given up if he obtains employment at another colliery. So it is with the question that we have before us. We know that at the present time, when a landlord or farmer owns the houses on his land, a man is practically "tied," and that if he attempts to get work elsewhere he has to lose his house. This provision will continue that system. It is very difficult to stop it. But when it comes to a question of giving public money in order to carry on that system, we think it our duty to protest.
The Amendment suggests a means whereby control could be put under a public body. It may be argued that a local council could not undertake this work, that they may not have the means to do it. But there may be in their area a public utility society, public-spirited in many ways. I remember that when the Labour Party conference was held at Brighton I went to see a friend of mine who was connected with a society that was trying to provide houses for the working-class community in his part of the country. It seemed to me that the society was acting in a public-spirited


way and was not trying to make too much profit. It is such a body that we have in mind in supporting this Amendment. I know that the Minister and hon. Members opposite are wedded to what is called private enterprise and that it is very difficult to break it down. In any Bill that comes before us we always find provisions inserted for the maintenance of private enterprise. On this occasion, as

on every occasion when the matter is raised, we shall argue that where public money is to be given greater protection ought to be provided before it is handed out.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 73.

Division 143.]
AYES.
[12.18 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of I. dn.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pilkington, R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Keeling, E. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kimball, L.
Storey, S.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Latham, Sir P.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Loftus, P. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lyons, A. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tate, Mavis C.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Touche, G. C.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Cross, R. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maitland, A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dixon, Capt Rt. Hon. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Doland, G. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Miteham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dunglass, Lord.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)
Wood, Hon. C. l. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Munro, P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Elmley, Viscount
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)



Everard, W. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Grimston and Mr. Furness.




NOES


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
MacLaren, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maxton, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Messer, F.


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, A.
Paling, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parkinson, J. A.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pearson, A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hicks, E. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Day, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.


Ede, J. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Gallacher, W.
Lee, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gardner, B. W.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)




Smith, T. (Normanton)
Tomlinson, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Viant, S. P.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Thorne, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.



Tinker, J. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 6, leave out "section," and insert "subsection"—[The Solicitor- General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Whiteley: There are one or two matters to which we must call attention before we part with the Bill. The great thing so far as we on this side of the House are concerned has been the alteration in the subsidy. That is going to have a very detrimental effect on the local authorities. I should like to show what will happen in the area from which I come. The clerk of the council has made a very careful calculation of the value of the subsidy under the new Act as compared with the position at the present time in regard to the building of 50 houses. At the present time 50 houses, with an average of 3½ persons per house, would bring in from the Government a subsidy of £393 15s. The local contribution would be £3 15s. per house, that is, £187 10s., or a total for Government subsidy and local authority contribution of £581 5s. for the 50 houses, an average of £11 12s. 6d. per house. For the building of 50 houses under this Bill the Government subsidy would be £275 and the local authority contribution, £137 10s., a total of £412 10s., or £8 5s. per house. That is a tremendous difference between the existing position and the position which will be brought about under the new legislation.
My district is in what is called a Special Area. We have difficulties of all kinds, without additional difficulties being put upon our shoulders by the reduction of the housing subsidy. Therefore, we want to make a last appeal to the Minister. He is as well aware as we are that in these areas particularly this Bill will not be of any advantage, compared with the present situation. We want him to realise that situation and, by some means, give the assistance which is essential for the full development of housing programmes in the country. I give the right hon. Gentleman the credit that he desires to improve the housing position among the working class population as much as any

man in this House, but he will not do it in this way. Therefore, if he is as anxious as I think he is, I want him to face up to the situation and to give the local authorities under his charge, as Minister of Health, every possible facility to overcome their difficulties and to meet the very urgent housing position which exists. In view of the necessity for slum clearance and the remedying of overcrowding there is a tremendous lot to be done in improving the housing of the people. From this side of the House we would urge the right hon. Gentleman to examine the case very carefully and see that in no measure is he going to reduce the possibility of the advanced movement of the local authorities in this respect, but that he will facilitate that advance in order that we may overcome the difficulties so far as housing is concerned.

12.32 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I have very little to say, because we have had an admirable discussion on the Bill, considering the scale of its aspirations. The right hon. Gentleman will not claim that it is a great constructive Housing Bill. It is very much of the character of Bills that we place in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If it becomes an Act of Parliament, certain parts of this legislation will automatically disappear. Therefore, we have to approach the Bill in its final form from that point of view. The Minister will not suggest that the Bill makes more generous provision for housing than the legislation on the Statute Book. I do not take exception to the unification of subsidies. The Bill simplifies book-keeping, and when it comes to rating it simplifies the administration by the appropriate department of the local authority.
The right hon. Gentleman, with his great energy and enthusiasm for public health, has lost an opportunity. The work of the last 20 years since the War has enabled us to acquire a good deal of experience. We are always learning. I have learned a great deal during the last 20 years by active contact with housing, and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I have had to readjust my opinions in the light of experience. I hope that he will


not suggest to the House and the country that this is the last word in housing legislation and that it completes the edifice. I regard the Bill as a temporary Measure to continue existing laws, to simplify them, to adjust them and to make the terms a little less generous to the local authorities and a little more in the interests of the taxpayers. Be that as it may, all of us who are interested in housing are glad that the subsidies are to continue.
I hope that one or two comments I have made during the Committee stage will have some effect upon the right hon. Gentleman. My first suggestion is that in regard to future legislation the subsidy will be per room instead of per house. There was a time when as a member of the local authority I and my colleagues preferred the subsidy to be per house, but in the light of recent experience I think it is vital now to encourage the building of houses for large families. To a great extent the demand for houses for married people without children has been met, but people with large families are finding local authorities less and less able to meet their requirements. When the subsidy is per house irrespective of size there is a temptation on the part of some local authorities to build small houses rather than large ones, and I think the Minister should encourage local authorities to provide houses for people with larger families. There is a danger in the unification of the subsidies that the gravest problem of all, the overcrowding of large families, will not be met. In a recent report it was proved up to the hilt that the worst overcrowding of all occurred in the case of people with large families. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an undertaking that he will consider this problem and encourage local authorities to build more houses suitable for large families. If the subsidy were per room instead of per house, it might be a satisfactory solution of the problem.
There is the other point to which I want to refer—the danger of making the people in our great towns and cities flat dwellers. I admit that the construction of cottages in the centre of big towns is not a simple matter. If you are clearing a slum area and rehousing the majority of the people on the site, obviously, it is necessary to build up, but I am assured

by architects that with a little ingenuity it is possible to include, when you are rebuilding on a slum area, a certain number of cottages. There is this further point, that there is a temptation on the part of architects and surveyors to sweep away large areas in order to make them attractive by well-planned development. Being interested in town planning I was at first somewhat attracted to that theory, I was all for large-scale rebuilding and re-planning. But in the light of experience it has been found that you turn people out of their homes to which they are devoted and push them into these monstrous buildings, these sky-scrapers, of which we are getting too many, not only for the working classes, but for the middle classes as well.
The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of being the guide, philosopher and friend of local authorities and the general public, and I want him to give a pledge that he will discourage the sweeping away of streets with habitable houses when it is done merely to complete a scheme. I am visualising at the moment a row of pleasant little houses I know, with nice gardens inhabited by very pleasant people, whose fathers and grandfathers lived in the same neighbourhood. There is a proposal to sweep away some of these streets in order to make a public open space to complete a rehousing scheme. Of course public open spaces are very desirable, and I am the last person to object to any proposal for open spaces, parks and playing fields, but I think that with a little understanding of the real problem, local authorities might be persuaded to spare these good streets of decent houses with back gardens.
It always comes as a surprise to hon. Members who represent rural constituencies when I tell them that although I represent an East End constituency I have the most live poultry society in the whole of Greater London. I am going to-night to present the cups in connection with our local poultry club.

Mr. Everard: I would remind the hon. Baronet that he learnt what he knows about agriculture when he represented the Market Harborough division.

Sir P. Harris: If the hon. Member will come down to our local institute to-night he will see poultry there which will beat any poultry produced in the Market


Harborough division, which I represented during the War. This poultry is produced in back yards. Many of these back yards have been swept away by improvement schemes. You may be very clever and ingenious and enthusiastic in the study of poultry, but you cannot keep poultry in block dwellings; it is not allowed; it is not practicable. I give that as an example to show what the problem really is. By all means clear the slums and put up block dwellings, but spare the decent homes of the working class in London, Manchester, and Liverpool where it is not necessary to pull them down in order to get uniformity and good planning. With these two warnings, that the right hon. Gentleman should provide for large families and spare for working class people the decent houses with back gardens, I shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I join other hon. Members in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for bringing rural district councils within the ambit of the subsidy? I wish the right hon. Gentleman could have met more of our demands in Committee. However, we must make the best of the matter. I want to urge upon the Minister that even when the Bill becomes law he will realise that there are parts of the country where something more will be required to compel local authorities to take full advantage of the Measure. I have grave doubts whether the Bill is adequate to deal with the problem all over the country, and very grave doubts whether it is adequate to deal with the problem in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman will know that during the last few weeks there has been an investigation in South Wales conducted by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies). It has been a very able and a very courageous inquiry, and the disclosures have shocked our people and the nation. I regret that the inquiry has not been given wider publicity, but, honestly, the disclosures have been really shocking. It has been shown that the housing conditions are a scandal to my country and a scandal to this nation.
Last summer, when the Estimates of the Ministry of Health were before the House, I said that I had read all the available documents and reports and that I had discovered that Wales presented

a very black picture from the standpoint of public health. Seven counties in Wales are on the black list for tuberculosis and for maternal mortality, including the county a portion of which I have the honour to represent. At that time, I pressed the Minister to make an investigation into the relationship of the problem of public health to that of housing. The right hon. Gentleman's officers have conducted a very thorough investigation into housing problems in the county of Carnarvonshire, and I thank them for doing so. Those investigations have disclosed the existence of a terrible condition of things and of slum property of the worst kind scattered over rural Wales.
There are in Wales many old-established market and industrial towns. They are really no more than large villages, but if one went there and described them as villages, one would have a rough time. They are proud of calling themselves townships, and some of them are ancient boroughs with charter rights going back almost to the beginning of English and Welsh history. In places such as Llandilo, Carmarthen, and Kedivelly in Carnarvonshire, and in other rural parts of the country, the investigations of the officers of the Ministry disclosed the existence of slum property more calamitous in its consequences than slum property in the East End of London. Very often the effects of slum property in large cities are lessened by the very good social services, but in the towns and rural areas to which I have been referring, there is very often not only poor housing but a poor level of social services. I will give the House one instance of what is the position. It is not an isolated case, and when the Minister receives the report of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire, he will find that there are other cases. It was found that within the last four or five years a father, mother and six children had lived in a house containing only one room downstairs, that room having an earthen floor. When the house was examined, there was found in the middle of the living room, as it was called, a pool of water. The doctor made an investigation into the history of the family and discovered that the father and mother and two children had died of tuberculosis, and that the four remaining children, who were still living in the house, were affected by that disease. If that were an isolated case, it


would be less disturbing, but it is not, and it presents a terrible picture of conditions in rural areas of South Wales.
In the Bill which is now being passed, there is a unified subsidy, and for rural areas, thanks to the concession which has been given, there is an extra £1. However, I would emphasise that this House has passed many Housing Measures, I do not know how many since the end of the War. But what is the good of passing these Measures if the local authorities, either owing to the lack of financial resources or for some other reasons, cannot improve the housing in their areas? I urge the Minister that, if he finds that the provisions of the Bill do not give the adequate financial assistance which is required to tackle the problem, he should reconsider the matter very soon. In conclusion, when the Bill becomes law, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having before him all the facts which his Department has collected concerning maternal mortality, tuberculosis and housing conditions in Wales—a good deal of which is due in some instances to the local authorities having neglected their duties—will take strong action by all the means in his power to see that the housing conditions in the rural and semi-rural parts of Wales are dealt with under the Bill.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Everard: ; As one who represents an agricultural division, I wish to say that I differ to some extent from the hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who seems to think that the Bill is a temporary Measure. As far as the agricultural side is concerned, it is certainly not a temporary Measure. It supplies the subsidy for a very large number of years, and it meets a need which has existed in agricultural districts for a very long time. I am a member of the rural district council in the district in which I live, and I have noticed in the villages in that area that a large number of houses have been built since the War, but that in every case those houses have been built for people other than agricultural workers. The obvious reason for that is that they have been built to let at a rent which agricultural workers cannot afford. The needs which this Bill seeks to satisfy have been neglected until now.
There can be no doubt that in the agricultural districts it is urgently necessary that something should be done for the agricultural workers. They are among the best of our population, and as far as housing and other conditions are concerned, they have undoubtedly been put on one side to a large extent compared with some of the industrial workers. I think there are three main reasons for the drift to the towns. The first is wages, the second I believe is the question of agricultural education in central schools, and the third is housing. It would be out of Order for me to deal with the first two reasons, but I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken in hand the matter of rural housing. In the agricultural districts, there are very few modern houses. In the purely agricultural parts of my own constituency, I do not know of any houses that have been built recently, except those that have been built by such landlords as are still able to provide them. There is no doubt that there is not in the agricultural industry the amount of money that there used to be, and however desirous the landlord may be of building a sufficient amount of modern houses for the people employed on the land, he is very often unable to do so.
One hon. Member opposite discussed the question of tied houses in the agricultural districts. I would remind him that there are two sides to that question. Quite a number of agricultural workers have told me that they would like to leave one village and go to another village to work, but unfortunately they could not find a house. The fact that no houses are being built by the councils for agricultural workers has stopped those people from going to other villages to seek employment. It is not altogether a question of tied houses, although tied houses may have something to do with it. A very important consideration is the question with which the Minister is dealing to-day, namely, the provision of up-to-date accommodation for agricultural workers, which will give them a greater opportunity of choosing the farmer for whom they will work and the district in which they wish to live. Briefly, it is for those reasons that I heartily support the Measure.

12.55 p.m.

Colonel Burton: I should like to endorse what has already been said on the


question of getting these houses built. We have had a great deal of legislation upon this subject during the past 20 years, but, unfortunately, we do not seem to be able to get the houses which are required. At present local councils are overburdened with all sorts of work which is thrust upon them by various Government Departments, and while in many cases the authority sympathise with the position of those who require houses, they cannot themselves undertake the work. They are already overburdened. Therefore, I feel a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendment which was moved with the object of getting societies to undertake this work. We on this side of the House are, of course, in favour of private enterprise, but I believe that if we adopted an Amendment of the kind which was moved from the other side, the building societies would come forward and provide these houses.
I have discussed this matter with representatives of leading building societies and I find that, while they are prepared to come in and to do the big thing themselves, they will have nothing to do with the circumlocution which is involved in dealing with the county councils. If they were able to deal directly with the Ministry they would come in and do the work. I received only this morning a resolution from the West Suffolk County Council in which they ask that the attention of His Majesty's Government should be called to the continued drift of labour from agriculture to other industries. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) has said is very largely due to the state of housing in the rural areas. Anyone who comes to my part of the country and sees the derelict condition of the houses there will understand the reason for the drift from the agricultural to the industrial areas. This resolution goes on to say that local authorities in connection with the education and other social services are hampered and their expenditure therein to some extent nullified owing to the uncertainty caused by movement of the population to urban areas and the deterioration of the financial position. It is a very serious business to find that in the rural areas our rates are going up and our population going down. We are promised all sorts of things by various Government Departments. The Minister

of Transport, for instance, promises us electric lighting and other amenities, but the Minister of Agriculture passes measures for the restriction of output thereby causing additional difficulties in the agricultural areas. Now we are offered this small lifebuoy of a long-term housing scheme. I hope that special consideration will be given to the case of the agricultural areas in this respect.

12.59 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I should be very glad if I were able to declare that this was a thoroughly good Bill. But after a long experience of the housing question in municipal and political life I cannot make that declaration. On the contrary, I believe that, as regards urban housing, this is a thoroughly reactionary Measure. As far as rural housing is concerned, it has certain advantages. It will stimulate local authority building and other forms of building which are urgently required in our country districts. But on the urban side of the problem the reduction of the subsidy by 50 per cent. will, on the one hand, arrest building, and, on the other hand, lead to an increase of rents in the case of the houses that are built. Undoubtedly application will be made by various authorities for further consideration of the proposals contained in this Measure. I trust the Minister will lend a ready ear to their representations.
I hope there will be further consideration for those authorities whose housing obligations are excessive, and particularly those whose resources are diminishing. In the county of Durham, to which reference has already been made, there is a housing programme ahead—up to the end of this year—of no less than 33,000 houses. In Durham serious apprehension has been felt as to the general health conditions of the community, and special investigations have been taking place into the high incidence of tuberculosis and other diseases in the county. It is not that the people, on the whole, are less healthy than people in other parts of the country or that the district itself is less pleasantly situated than other districts. This high incidence of disease is attributable to housing conditions. It is caused by gross overcrowding and by the continued menace of a slum problem with which that relatively poverty-stricken county has not been able to deal as rapidly as we would desire.
Under this Measure as against the 1930 subsidy, which we contend ought to have been continued, there will be a loss to that county in the course of 40 years of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. That is a serious burden to place on a district which is already stricken with poverty and in which rating burdens are rising. The latest returns show that the rates are rising 1s. 8d. in the £ and a special conference is to be held with a view to seeing what mitigation of the serious problem will be offered by the Government. To expect this county, in these circumstances to go forward cheerfully with an endeavour to solve this mighty problem is to expect too much. Therefore, while one would desire the passage of a long-promised and long-anticipated Measure to deal with the position, I feel that to-day we are being driven to pass what is, in reality, and what will prove in practice to be, as far as the urban areas are concerned, a reactionary Measure.

1.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
We made our attitude on this Bill clear during the Second Reading Debate, and I need not detain the House long to-day in explaining the grounds of our opposition to it. During the proceedings on the Bill nothing has been said by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to convince us that the abandonment of the principle of the Act of 1930 is wise or desirable. Not even the Minister with his Population Statistics Measure can standardise the size of the family, and it is important that housing accommodation should be provided with proper regard to the varying sizes of families. Provision has to be made for the childless couple and for the young married couple. We have also to deal with problem of the aged and one of the most difficult problems is that of the family which is larger than the normal.
It is clear that if you are going to deal with the varying needs of the family, a ndard rate, however skilfully you may  average it out, will place the local  in considerable difficulty. I ave preferred that the right hon.

Gentleman should have stuck to the principle of making the grant payable on the number of persons rehoused. The hon. Baronet has suggested that it might be on the number of rooms in the house, but I think that is a very bad half-way solution. I would prefer to stick to my own principle of a grant based on persons rather than on rooms, because if you do it on the basis of rooms, you may still get serious overcrowding, but if you base it on persons, you enable the local authority to meet the requirements of the family.
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to defend his new grant as being even more generous than my subsidy of 1930. In that, I fear, he has not got the approval of local authorities, who are viewing the situation with very grave apprehension, and if it be true, as clearly it must be, with regard to large numbers of houses under slum clearance schemes, that the grant payable by the State is smaller, then obviously there must be either fewer houses or a greater local burden. That greater local burden might be distributed in one of two ways. It might be by a heavier charge upon the rates, or it might be by higher rents; and, of course, it might be by both. I do not look forward with any amount of satisfaction to the possibility of the right hon. Gentleman's completing the programme that he has in mind, because I fear that with local authorities unable to face an increased burden, with ratepayers, hard pressed as they are in many areas, unable to face the burden, and with masses of the people unable to face increased rents, the result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy will be a slowing down of municipal activity in the field of housing.
My second objection to the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman fully knows, is an objection to Clause 3, where he is now re-establishing the vicious principle of State grants in aid of private enterprise in housing. We cannot in any circumstances accept that principle, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has a very uneasy conscience in that matter, because when the Bill first appeared before the House the marginal heading to Clause 3 read:
Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by private enterprise.
Now the Bill appears before us with that side-head reading:


Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by persons other than local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman still wants private enterprise, but he feels a little ashamed of putting it so nakedly on the face of the Bill, and so he has altered it to "persons other than local authorities." We still hold to the view that we took on Second Reading in regard to those rural areas where there are exceptional housing difficulties, which I fully recognise and would never try to minimise. In many cases their difficulties are greater than those of urban authorities, and if there is a case for local authority enterprise, it is to be found in the rural areas. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to add a new solution, that new solution being to revert to what I regard as the bad principle of financing private enterprise, and it can only work out in this way. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it applies only to special circumstances, but there is nothing in the Bill to that effect. I asked him on the Second Reading and in Committee to make it perfectly clear that it applied only to special circumstances, to the lonely stockman out on the hill, to the shepherd, and so on, but under the terms of the Bill it is perfectly open to any rural authority in this country to give approval to landlords evading their own feudal responsibilities towards the people whom they employ by getting the local authority to give them financial assistance.
That seems to me to be wrong. Just as the Minister of Labour, who was here a few moments ago, thought he was doing something constructive for the people of this nation by relieving the feudal landlords of the responsibility of keeping their chauffeurs and gatekeepers and so on when they were out of work, so the Minister of Health under this Bill, is relieving those who ought to take their feudal responsibilities of those responsibilities, with the help of public money. On those grounds we have no alternative but to vote against the Bill in the division lobby. I take the view—and I am answering now the hon. baronet on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman—that this is not the end of housing legislation. I feel that this is a stopgap Measure, one which in some very important respects is retrograde, and in these circumstances we have no alternative but to vote against it.

1.13 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I think the House would desire me to say a word or two at the conclusion of this Debate, and I should not like any hon. Member to think I was guilty of discourtesy in not answering or attempting to answer points that have been raised in the Debate. Of course, the real answer to those points must be found in the events which will follow the passage of the Measure, which alone can show whether the Bill fulfils in the main the promise and the hopes that those who are responsible for it have made and held on its behalf. I would, however, like to make one or two observations on some of the points raised by hon. Members, and I will say generally that I will take into account the suggestions which have been made in the course of the Debate as far as the administration of the Measure is concerned, as I am always desirous of doing. I am always ready to reconsider any suggestions which fall within the scope of the legislation that is on the Statute Book.
I was particularly impressed with regard to the condition of housing in Wales, raised by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I confess that I feel that, apart from new housing legislation, if only some of the existing legislation were put into operation, it would be of very great value, and I agree that both the Minister and the local authorities must pay increasing attention to some of the conditions which unhappily exist in Wales at the present time. He will agree that the Committee to which he referred and which has almost completed its labours has served a useful purpose in drawing public attention to this question. We may put legislation on the Statute Book, but we rely, as all parties must continue to rely, on the local authorities. We have to see that the local authorities do their work, and that can be accomplished only by maintaining a public conscience on this matter. No one must think that we have completed our housing endeavours either in Wales or in this country. Although we have made remarkable strides since the War, no one who goes to Wales or to some of the cities, and villages, too, in this country, will for a moment rest content.
I hope, however, that the criticisms and fears which have been expressed, as they always have to be expressed by the


Opposition, may not be fulfilled, and that this Measure will ensure a continuous programme by the local authorities for the next five years. It will absorb, as far as one can see, practically all the building labour that will be available. I do not want to provoke any further controversy at this moment, but, as far as we can estimate, taking the financial position as a whole this Bill means an additional Exchequer contribution for the whole scheme of some £500,000 a year. There must be few countries in the world to-day which, unhappily, have to sustain burdens in connection with defence, as we have to do, that are able to carry social legislation forward as we are doing, particularly in relation to housing.
I will take into account a number of suggestions that have been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). He has stressed the need for provision for larger families, and I will continue to urge that on local authorities in proper cases. There are, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said with all his knowledge, the needs of various classes of persons to be taken into account. There are not only the needs of the larger families, but the needs of old age pensioners, and I am asking local authorities to endeavour to take them into account. I also appreciate what the hon. Baronet said about those large areas of decent streets which are being taken over for

housing. We would all like to see a number of these places saved, but when we are dealing with a large area we cannot avoid difficulties of this kind. It is easy to get up and say we want slum clearance and at the same time want to preserve these houses—

Mr. Montague: And the chickens.

Sir K. Wood: Yes, and the chickens. It is difficult to see how this can be done within the realm of a practical scheme. I would like to thank my hon. Friends for what they have said in regard to agricultural housing. I do not think there is much difference of opinion in the House about the agricultural conditions, and this Bill is a real attempt to deal with the housing needs of the agricultural workers. I believe that their needs are very real, and my impression is that if we are to get them, and the younger generation especially, to stay on the land, we have to do a great deal more for them; and one of the most important things is better housing conditions. They are naturally not content—and they are right—to live under conditions under which their grandfathers lived. I hope that this Bill will be some contribution to that problem, and that the effect of it will be to make an important contribution towards keeping our slum clearance and overcrowding programmes alive.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 63.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[1.23 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Keeling, E. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Ellis, Sir G.
Kimball, L.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Everard, W. L.
Latham, Sir P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fildes, Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cary, R. A.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Furness, S. N.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lyons, A. M.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Grant-Ferris, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Granville, E. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Maitland, A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Markham, S. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


De la Bère, R.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Doland, G. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)




Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Rowlands, G.
Touche, G. C.


Moreing, A. C.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Munro, P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Savery, Sir Servington
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Witloughby de Eresby, Lord


Pilkington, R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pownall, LI.-Col. Sir Assheton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Storey, S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.



Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Mr. Cross and Major Herbert.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeslon)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Hicks, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Green, W. H. (Deptlord)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.



Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.


Bill read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (POSTPONEMENT OF VALUATIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

1.30 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill provides for the postponement until April, 1941, of the operation of the new valuation lists which will shortly come into force in England and Wales outside London. London is not affected by this legislation. Under the existing law the new valuation is not due to come into operation in London until April, 1941. That is the date provided for in this postponement. In nearly all the rating areas outside London the new valuation would have come into opera-lion in April, 1939, and the postponement is, therefore, for a period of two years. I should also mention that in Oxford,

Northampton and parts of Berkshire, the revaluation would have taken effect in April of this year, but at the request of the assessment committees responsible for those three areas orders have been made, under the existing powers in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to postpone the operation of those lists for six months, and Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill provides that these postponed lists shall not take effect. Therefore, if this Bill is passed, throughout England and Wales, without exception, the next revaluation will come into force in respect of the same period in 1941. An incidental advantage of the postponement will be to secure for the first time that all rating areas in England and Wales are valued simultaneously, and it will be the same with subsequent revaluations.
I think the House will be aware of the main reasons for the postponement. They are contained in the letter which I received from the Central Valuation Committee on 13th February and which appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 17th February in answer to a Question which


was put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby). The Central Valuation Committee, whom I had previously consulted, refer in their letter to the difficulties that had arisen in the preparation of the third valuation Lists, and I should like to say a word about the Central Valuation Committee in this connection. It is their function
to give the Minister such information and to make to him such representations in respect of the operation of the Act as they may consider desirable for providing uniformity and removing inequalities in the system of valuation.
Another duty imposed upon the Committee is to convene conferences
with a view, more particularly, to the formulation of principles for the assistance or guidance of Rating Authorities, Assessment Committees and County Valuation Committees.
Before referring further to their letter, I think I ought to say that we owe a great deal to the Central Valuation Committee for their efforts to secure assessment on a uniform basis. The memorandum which hon. Members have had brought to their notice and which they ought to study, has been misunderstood. It was strictly within the duties of the Committee, and they were following the same course as had been adopted at previous revaluations, and, in fact, the advice that they give did no more than emphasise the requirements resting upon local authorities under various Acts of Parliament and they were in no way seeking to formulate or to amend the law.
I would draw the attention of the House to the letter and the reasons which the Committee have given for the course they recommend. They referred particularly to representations that they had received that hardship would arise among certain classes of ratepayer if the application of the statutory definition of "gross values" were now applied. Without expressing any views upon such statements, the Committee state to me that they think it is desirable that investigations should be made and, if the representations are found to be justified, an appropriate remedy should be found. In order to give time for such investigation the Committee suggest that the coming into operation of the third new valuation lists should be postponed until April, 1941.
The Committee rightly emphasise, among other things, that uniformity of valuation is essential within each rating area, in order that rates may be fairly and properly charged upon respective ratepayers in such a manner that there shall be demanded from each of them the sum he ought to pay, and neither more nor less. It is clear that the difficulty of applying the provisions is particularly felt with respect to the assessment of houses. In such circumstances the Government have accepted the recommendations put forward by the Committee, and submit the present Bill in order to give effect to them. I have under consideration the manner in which the allegations of hardship can most conveniently be investigated and I propose, before reaching any final conclusion on this point, to consult, as the House would wish, the various associations of local authorities on this matter. I intend also to issue at an early date a communication to the local authorities dealing with the various matters that will naturally arise as a result of this legislation.
I would now like to make one or two general observations upon points which have arisen. Certain local authorities have made advance preparations in relation to their lists. Such preparation and all the expenditure upon it will not be wasted, for much of the work will still be available for the revaluation in 1941. Take, for instance, the work of surveying premises. The bulk of the work will be useful in 1941. It is true that further structural alterations and additions to premises will be made in the interval, but under the building by-laws, plans of those alterations have to be submitted to the local authorities, and those cases will no doubt be kept in mind, and later work upon surveying can be limited for the most part to those cases. I have no doubt that many hon. Members will have had brought before them the question of the professional work of surveying which has already been done. Again, this will always be valuable, and I have no doubt that the engagements of surveyors to local authorities can be adjusted, particularly where their contracts provide that their work should be undertaken between specified dates.
It will be open to local authorities, and I think it will be in their own interests, to proceed, although not necessarily under the same pressure with the work


of revaluation. The material obtained with any necessary corrections, which should not be extensive or difficult, will be required in 1940 and adjustments to meet the new situation, if hardship in the present law should be established, will readily be made. In fact, it is the results of this work which will disclose the facts in relation to the allegation of hardship, and will form the basis on which the proposed investigation can proceed.
My only other observation is that the Bill limits the postponement to the new lists to be made for revaluation, as was recommended by the Committee, and that it does not curtail or prohibit the making of amendments under the current list, which enables amendment to be made at any time upon cause shown. I have heard suggestions made about local authorities, but I have no doubt that they will observe the spirit of this legislation to the full. There is certainty no danger of any wholesale revaluation being undertaken by these means, but it is important to preserve the right to make current amendments when it is clear that an assessment is not in conformity with the general level of assessments in the area. It would not be right as a result of this legislation either on the one hand to prevent a ratepayer from securing a just reduction of his liability if such is warranted during the period of the postponement or, on the other hand, to prevent an amendment of an assessment where it is clear that the particular ratepayer is not bearing his due share of the common burden.
Alterations are clearly being made in the condition of particular properties, and it is essential to retain power to revise current assessments in accordance with the alterations made. A property might, for instance, be completely gutted by fire, and the ratepayer concerned is entitled to secure an amendment of his assessment. It is also undesirable to cancel amendments recently made in current assessments. Retrospective legislation demands the strongest justification, and it would clearly not be possible to differentiate between recent amendments which brought the assessments to a higher level than the general level in the area and those which corrected assessments which were below the general level.
I think that the decision to introduce the Bill has been generally welcomed.

I am much indebted to the Central Valuation Committee for all their work, and particularly for the attention that they have given to this matter. I hope that hon. Members will feel as I do that, since allegations have been made that the present law of valuation, if strictly enforced, would work serious hardship, it is right that those allegations should be fully and carefully investigated, and the remedy found, if one is needed. The postponement proposed will enable this to be done and greater uniformity in valuation will thus be secured, if necessary. For those reasons I present the Measure to the House.

1.43 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: This is one of the few occasions when I find myself in some measure of agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, although it is not quite 100 per cent. I realise to the full the very complicated task of the Central Valuation Committee, which is not a body on which I should choose to serve. I also realise the difficulties of assessment committees. I accept for the time being our rather antiquated rating system. It is clear that in the interests of the citizens there should be simultaneous revaluations, and that there should be a standard of uniformity of valuation. I admit the case of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Central Valuation Committee for a postponement of revaluation, because it will assist towards getting simultaneous revaluation and uniformity. That is all to the good. I realise that hardships exist now and I can appreciate that after the next valuation some new kind of hardships will be created.
My chief bone of contention with the right hon. Gentleman is with regard to the position of local authorities. He has tried now to appease their feelings of apprehension, but I should imagine that the local authorities will not feel satisfied with the statement he has made. He says that the advance preparations which have been made by many local authorities will not be wasted, because they will all be available for 1941. The work of the surveyors, he says, will still be of value. That sounds very well from the right hon. Gentleman, but local authorities have no guarantee that, if unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman happens to be here in 1940 or 1941, the same process of postponement will not be adopted again,


because, in the froth and tangle of the difficulties of local rating, to get uniformity in a short time seems to be well nigh impossible.
By then, of course, the situation will have changed. There will be differences in site values; site values will be rising and falling; there will be differences in the structure of buildings, and differences in the use to which buildings are being put; and one can well imagine that all the work which the local authorities have put in up to now will be wasted. Indeed, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a good deal of it will be out of date by the time that the new valuation comes into operation. Many local authorities are complaining that they have already expended considerable sums of money in this statutory duty which has been laid upon them. I have here, for example, a letter from the County Borough of West Ham stating that the expenditure they have already incurred is quite considerable. The City of Hull have reduced it to figures, and say that already, before the announcement of this Bill, they had incurred an expenditure of approximately £2,850.

Mr. Leach: In Bradford it is £3,500.

Mr. Greenwood: These sums are considerable. The right hon. Gentleman continues to impose greater and greater burdens upon local authorities, and today he has sent to the House of Lords a Bill, about which I have already spoken, which will do the same kind of thing. Although I fully appreciate the reasons for the present Bill, at the same time it seems to me that there is a moral obligation on the right hon. Gentleman to recompense the local authorities for the expenditure which they have already incurred, because I do not share his view, and certain local authorities do not share his view, that they are going to get value for the money they have already spent. If the right hon. Gentleman were to make a generous gesture by saying that he is prepared to consider the question of reimbursing local authorities for expenditure a good deal of which will undoubtedly be wasted, it would make the Bill a little more acceptable to us. I am satisfied that local authorities will be making very strong representations to the right hon. Gentleman on this matter, and I suggest

to him that it would be well that he should try to find a better case to put to them in reply than the one he has put forward to-day.

1.49 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I feel that I must voice the opinion of those whom I represent in Parliament in thanking my right hon. Friend for the action he has taken with a view to setting at lest the very real apprehensions that were felt in many quarters of the country, and particularly in the area which I represent in this House, and in thanking him also for his great kindness, courtesy and sympathy in listening to the many representations which I have conveyed to him from interested persons and bodies. That there was a very real feeling of apprehension there can be no doubt. Rapid development is taking place in the Epsom Division of Surrey. The population is increasing at a rate of anything from 8,000 to 10,000 every year; estates are continually being developed; large numbers of houses are going up which are being paid for by instalments by the people who are living in them.
In the case of one estate it is computed that at least 80 per cent. of the people there are paying for their houses by instalments, and any increase in the rates, and still more any increase in the Schedule A assessments which an increase m the rates might well bring about, would to them be a very serious matter. One association which has communicated with me reckoned that, if the recommendations of the Central Valuation Committee had been carried out, it would have meant that, on the Schedule A assessments alone, newly married couples earning £230 a year, or married couples with one child, earning £300 a year, would have had to pay at least an extra £2 6s. per annum. When one remembers the statement of the present Prime Minister in 1925, that the Government were extremely anxious that the Bill then under discussion should not necessarily put an extra burden upon the rates, the views of those who have applied to me are certainly worthy of consideration.
In the area in which I am interested, we find that the values of property are going down, assessments are rising, and


rates, as I suppose is the case in other parts of the country, seem always to be going up. Although the values of property may have decreased considerably there is at the same time no corresponding reduction in assessments. I quite agree that is essential that we should have uniformity of rating throughout the country, and that valuations should take place simultaneously. I hope that one of the results of this proposal will be that future valuations will be synchronised. It is not that we want increased assessments, but we want uniform assessments.
I am rather of opinion that the difficulties of the almost chaotic system of rating which exists at the present time are incapable of solution along the lines on which we have been going up to date. I am not at all sure that the best means of arriving at rateable value would not be to take as a basis the value that property would fetch in the market, and not what it will fetch as regards rent, since rents are governed by scarcity of houses and other causes. The decontrol legislation which we have been discussing lately certainly shows that the postponement envisaged by this Measure will be a very good thing. Speaking for my own area, I cannot help thinking that, if the assessments in the last valuation were correct, they should stand as correct at the present time, and I can see no reason why in that particular district there should be any increase of assessments. Houses which a few years ago would have fetched a considerable amount of money in the market now fetch perhaps half that sum, and all the time the assessments and rates have been rising.
As far as rents are concerned, it is not what the landlord or the speculator expects, or hopes, to get; it is what the individual renting the house is willing and able to pay. Those who are buying their own houses find themselves in a particularly difficult position. There is very little margin in the income in many cases to allow for increased assessment or increased Schedule A taxation. The Minister and the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition front bench referred to the question of work which has been done up to the present. I would like to quote a letter I have received from the clerk of one of the urban district councils in my division. He says:
My Council are in course of the preparation of the Third Quinquennial Valuation

List, having already obtained the necessary Forms of Return from occupiers, and having employed a firm of rating valuers to make the Valuation under a Contract for the completion of the work by the end of the coming summer. The rating valuers have been proceeding with the work for some time in accordance with their contract, in respect of which a payment on account has been already made and further payments become due in the financial year commencing on 1st April next. My Council is, therefore, committed by contract to the payment of valuers' fees for the making of the valuation within a specified period.
He goes on to say:
As the law stands at present, it would appear that a valuation made now would not be an effective valuation for the purposes of a Valuation List in two years' time, and that the forms of return already obtained from the occupiers could not be used, without further verification, for a deferred valuation.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is going to reply, to pay attention to that last paragraph. I think the local authorities really are in a very difficult position over this work for the doing of which they have already made contracts. While I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to do the fair thing by the local authorities, and has every intention of doing it, I would add my word to that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in asking whether he could reconsider the matter, with a view to finding a satisfactory solution of the difficulties of the local authorities. In conclusion, I would again thank the right hon. Gentleman for the action the Government have taken. I think that this postponement will set at rest many fears in the hearts of many people, and that, as a result, we may eventually have a fair and a uniform system of rating valuation throughout the country.

1.59 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: The Minister, in introducing this Bill, adopted a very disarming attitude; it was one of those small things that he thought must pass without much anxiety. But when the major Bill was before the House, in 1925, it was obvious that in its administration a deadlock would arise. The deadlock has come now. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has said truly that local authorities find themselves facing a menacing problem. Some of the hereditaments are going down in value, while rates are rising. But it is most interesting that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom should come to this House


and put this plea. It may be that in certain areas in Epsom all houses are going down in value as suitable houses to be inherited; but I do not think that it can be denied that the values of the area are going up enormously for development, so that there is a value there that could be got without putting a penny on the rates at all. This Bill is postponing the valuation because there has been a national protest by the ratepayers throughout the country as to what these new rates would mean. We are postponing it to another day, but the same problem will arise when you come to the day of the postponement.
The Minister says that there will be an attempt made in the interim to arrive at some uniform and simultaneous system of rating. That is playing with this House. What is the suggested remedy that the Minister is likely to discover during the two years of the postponement? He has not said. But he says that when the valuations have been made and submitted, inquiries will be made as to the possible hardships discovered, and that recourse shall be had to certain remedies. But what are the remedies? I suggest that he cannot come here and tell us that when the hardship of rates becomes another serious menace, in 1940, he can have any recourse known to the law today. He must enforce the present rating law. He cannot tell us that the Ministry is going to override the rating law and arrive at some beneficent form of distributing the rates as between one hereditament and another. Under the major Act, rating law was not changed and if there is to be no remedy devised in the meantime that law must be enforced. Under the present law the rates must be levied on the hereditaments according to the rental value procurable from year to year. There is no remedy that I know of in the hands of the Ministry now to meet that. Therefore, I say that it is playing with the House to bring in a Bill under the pretext that, in the two years that the Ministry will have, they can devise some remedy
I know it would be running wide of the rules of debate to dilate upon the system as I know it; but I have this amazing advantage in this House, that if I never open my mouth about it hon. Members know what I mean—so I will not get out of order by discoursing upon what

ought to be the rating law. Stoke-on-Trent this week has announced that rates are now likely to jump up to 18s. 6d. in the £. It will be the same all over the country. How long is it going to take this House to see that you cannot hope to develop your civic life, in Epsom, in Stoke-on-Trent or anywhere else, under the present rating system? You devised the Act of 1925, with its red herring of derating certain hereditaments and putting the liability on the Treasury, which means that the taxpayer has to pay. That was the great ingenious discovery of the Government of that day, but there comes a time when even the Treasury have to call a halt. The Treasury are being asked by the Local authorities, and rightly so, after having been put to great expense, to carry out this specific valuation under the Act of 1925, and now the Minister says that they can rub out this date. But that is not the end of it. The local authorities have had the expense of hiring professional advice to go into these valuation matters.
I do not know whether I should really condemn the Bill or thank the Minister for bringing it in. I am coming round to the opinion that we are lulling the citizens of this country to sleep with doles and Poor Law relief, lulling them into a sort of pig-sty comfort. Instead of thinking so much about matters which really concern the administration of the State, I am inclined to think that it would be far better in this House not to advocate a sane form of government, taxation and local rating, but rather to assist hon. Gentlemen opposite to enforce the law and to pile on the rates and taxes. Then, perhaps, it would awaken the citizens of this country to their responsibilities as citizens. Who would have thought that the representative of Epsom of all places, that dear old reactionary place, Epsom, should want a reform in our rating system. He said that it was not the rental value of an hereditament which should be charged, but that the valuation should be upon the selling value of the hereditament as it stands. I welcome his enlistment in my ranks by that pronouncement to-day.
I ask the Minister to deal honestly and straightforwardly with us here in regard to the rating law. What remedies has he to hand that will in any way remove the menace which is now upon him? He has


none that I know of, except that of passing a major Bill in this House, and he has not hinted at that to-day. If he is merely putting back the time when these rates must be paid, when that date comes and the rates have mounted up, he will find himself in a much more difficult position. I should like to see this Bill opposed, but I do not suppose it will be. I would like to see a division upon it for no other reason than that of making it a little more difficult for the rating system to work any more of the havoc it is working upon the social life of this country.

2.9 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: Hon. Members who know the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) will join with me in congratulating him upon the commendable restraint he has shown in not presenting to the House the cut-and-dried scheme which we all know he possesses, and the presentation of which on more appropriate occasions, always delights the House. The whole subject of our rating system is an interesting question to consider, but, like the hon. Gentleman I am afraid that I might trespass upon the Rules of Order if I attempted to go into the question.
There has been a general acknowledgment of the position both by Parliament and by local authorities that there is a greater degree of responsibility on the part of the nation towards a large section of the community who need assistance from the State. I believe that in the last resort it would not be a question of fixing the basis of local taxation upon either the rental or capital value of properties, but that it would come down to the capacity of the individual ratepayer to pay. The local authorities some time ago addressed a request to the Minister of Health that the whole question of local rating should be the subject of review. They asked either for the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend when he replies, is able to give any information on that subject.
I rose really to add my words of appeal also to the Minister with regard to the costs which have already been incurred by local authorities in regard to the valuation which was to have taken place on 1st April, 1939. Most of these authorities have already expended large sums of

money. I have received information that Manchester has presented an estimate for £14,000, that Bradford has paid £3,000, Bristol £3,000 and Croydon £1,550. I am informed by the town clerk of a much smaller town in my division that three-quarters of the work has been done. I have given the House figures which represent not the total cost but the amount which various local authorities require as additional expenditure to be incurred by them in consequence of the passing of this Bill. It is incumbent upon us to be more considerate of the local authorities when we are so dependent upon them for the administration of the various Acts that we pass.
The success of many Measures depends upon the administration of the local authorities. There is no doubt that in regard to many Bills which are passed in this House the financial considerations involved are not given sufficient attention, and as a consequence local requirements are not only constantly soaring, but additional responsibilities are placed upon the local authorities by Parliament for which no adequate financial provision is made by Parliament. This matter calls for more consideration than it has received in the past, and I ask my hon. Friend to give consideration to the appeal which has been addressed to him, and which represents the considered opinion of most of the local authorities, that, in regard to the expenses to which they have been put, steps should be taken to reimburse them through the Treasury. This is a request upon which all local authorities, whatever they may think about the postponement provided by this Measure, are unanimous.

2.13 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to say a few words on this Bill because of the alarm which has been expressed in my area and of the letters I have received from my local authority. I cannot help feeling that the Minister would be rather glad to accede to this request to defer these valuations. I remember the alarm that was occasioned when we had the last assessment. It appears that in our area we are having a combination of increased rating over which we have practically no control as local authorities. We are feeling the full weight of the de-rating, and are having to find the necessary money


from the householder and small shopkeeper, upon whom this is becoming an increasingly difficult burden. I join with my hon. Friends in calling attention to the unfairness of the present rating system during the time that the housing shortage has been going on. The unemployed man, or the man who has to work for a very low wage, is having to bear a particularly heavy burden through being compelled to live in a district where, owing to the demand for houses, rents are high. It has been probably one of the contributory factors that have led to the creation of slum populations. Men have been driven to find houses at the lowest possible rent in the meanest possible surroundings in order that they might live. The unfairness to most of the local authorities is this: While this shortage of houses and the increase of rents have been going on—when decontrol comes along we shall see another leap upwards and another burden added to the community—we have seen the price of the land going up tremendously, and sooner or later we shall be forced to consider the rating system of the country on the lines of the values that are being created by the community and are being taken as a gift by fortunate landowners.
We have had lately a series of little Bills which I believe the National Government will use at a general election. They will then say, "See what we have done for the blind, for physical fitness," and all that sort of thing. But in everything that they are doing they are passing increasing burdens on to the local authorities without considering how those local authorities are to bear the burdens. In my area, as in other places that have been mentioned to-day, the authorities have been getting on with their valuation lists, engaging the necessary experts with staffs, and the lists are considerably advanced. The Minister has not given any assurance that there will be adequate compensation to local authorities for the work they have done. I want to add my protest and to join in the pleas that have been made that something should be done to meet the local authorities in their increasing difficulties. The Minister states that this advanced work will not be wasted. I do not think that the work will "cut any ice" when the next valuation period comes; I believe that the work will be wasted. The thing that we

want is not fair words from the Minister. I am sure the Minister appreciates the expense that the local authorities have to face. Having in mind the burdens that they are carrying now the right hon. Gentleman ought to accede to the request that compensation be paid to the local authorities for the work they have done.

2.20 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a question on a point which may arise on this Bill. It is a somewhat similar point to that raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir. A. Southby). Many local authorities have already got their lists in an advanced state of preparation. In my constituency most of the district councils have engaged extra clerks for that purpose. We understand that it is the wish of the Minister that that work should be pursued and should be kept until the quinquennial valuation takes place. If during the period between now and the next quinquennium cases arise, such as appeals, is the new assessment at the new rate, to be on the existing basis or on the new basis that would not normally come into use until the next quinquennium? Councils will have in their offices the existing assessment and also the new assessment that is not to be brought into operation until 1941. In the case of an appeal which assessment must the council adopt?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I will answer that question now. There is no new basis of assessment that can be taken until the new Act comes into operation.

Colonel Clarke: Then it must be on the old basis, even though a local authority has the new basis complete?

2.23 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I ought to begin by expressing regret that I did not hear the Minister recommend this Bill to the House. That was owing to a misunderstanding on my own part. If in anything I say I do any injustice to the case for the Bill, I hope the Minister will forgive me. But I have been trying to understand what it is that the Bill seeks to do, and why it is thought necessary or advisable now to do it. The new valuations are due under existing legislation, and I understand that there has been a growing volume of protest based on the


uneasiness felt all over the country as to the incidence of local taxation resulting from existing legislation. The fear is that if the new valuations were made now they would be preponderatingly on a higher scale, and the burden of rates would be increased or the incidence altered in such a way as to make the cost less on those most able to bring pressure to bear on the Government. That uneasiness has resulted in so great a volume of protest as to make the Government feel that something will have to be done about it, and that the easiest way to appear to be doing something about it without in fact doing anything is to postpone the new valuations.
I do not know what advantage will be gained by postponing the valuations. All over the country, at any rate in the industrial areas and the big cities, the rate of poundage is going up by leaps and bounds. The city whose local taxation I understand best, Liverpool, is about to propose an increase in its rate poundage of 1s. 4d. for this year. That increase is kept as low as 1s. 4d. in the £ only by a proposal to cut the estimates, already cut to the bone in the opinion of many authorities. The estimates of the hospitals committee are to be cut by £40,000 and of the public assistance committee by £200,000. It is only by going to the sick and the poor and cutting down the city's expenditure on the sick and the poor by £240,000, which is roughly equivalent to a 1s. rate, that the increase in the rates can be kept so low as 1s. 4d. in the £.
Suppose the new valuation lists were not postponed. Liverpool, like other large cities, has around its borders vast areas which were once vacant agricultural land and are now becoming a veritable gold mine for the speculative suburban builders. Values are obviously rising. If the valuation lists were not postponed we could get increased assessments in those areas and we should get a larger contribution under our existing system from owners or occupiers of better-class new property which, if the revaluations are postponed, we shall have to collect by an increased rate poundage from much poorer and harder hit people. I am not pleading for a perpetuation of the existing rating system. What I am pointing out is that that system has broken down and that we have reached such a pass, as a

result of derating this and putting on further burdens in respect of that upon the local authorities, and the pressure from those people who are most inclined to support the Government in its general policy has become so great that it has had to be met by postponement of the revaluations, which would mere equitably distribute the burden, as far as the burden can be equitably distributed under a system on which its distribution is fundamentally inequitable. I understand that the claim has been made that the great merit of postponing the revaluations until 1941 is that it gives the Government time to look round. Time to think about what? Time to look round upon what?

Sir K. Wood: No such statement was made.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise if I have said something that does not fit in with what was said.

Sir K. Wood: It was not said.

Mr. Silverman: I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I understand him to be saying that the case for this Bill is not that the Government want to think or to look round; that that was not said and is not true. Then I am completely at a loss to understand what their case is.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member was not here. It would have been much better for him to have ascertained what was said. He is raising points on what was not said.

Mr. Silverman: Then let me not continue to allege that the Government at any rate expect, during the interval of time that they will have under this Bill for study, either to look round or to make inquiries. I should have hoped that they might have used the interval for that purpose.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member is introducing another matter, that of inquiry. That is a different matter.

Mr. Silverman: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. The point I was making was that the interval is to be used for the purpose of inquiry. What I said was "looking round" and "thinking." If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a great difference between inquiry


and looking round and thinking he is welcome to the difference. I suppose that the Government, when they pursue an inquiry, begin by looking round, and when they have looked round they think on what they have looked round at. That is what an inquiry means, and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to intervene. What is it that they are going to look round upon and inquire into? During the last two or three weeks questions have appeared repeatedly on the Order Paper asking the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman whether they propose to set up a commission of inquiry into our rating system, and the replies have been that they saw no necessity for any such inquiry. If they are not going to inquire into the rating system during the interval of time that they will have if this Bill becomes law, into what are they going to inquire, and what will be the good of it?
I believe that something was said about getting uniformity. Under the existing rating system you cannot get any measure to uniformity. The only way to get uniformity under our local taxation is to alter its basis, to change a basis that is admittedly inequitable into something that is based on sounder economic principles. If the Government are not going to inquire into that, they will find at the end of the period of this legislation that they will be in an even worse position than now. The difficulties which exist to-day, the obstacles which they recognise exist and which stand between them and the making of the new valuation, cannot but increase during the three years' further interval provided in this Bill. If the Government were to use the interval to inquire into a review of the whole system of local taxation there might be a case for this Bill.
If the Government say they are not going to do any such thing they are simply postponing the evil day and the rating injustices and inequities which will accumulate during this further period of three years will mean that their last state will be infinitely worse than their first, and that at the end they will be faced with the necessity of inquiring fundamentally into the system of local taxation with a view to remedial legislation, or they will be compelled again to postpone

the new valuations. That obviously cannot go on. Unless the Government are prepared to deal with the basis of local taxation no attempt to bring about a greater measure of uniformity or equity can succeed. Unless they are prepared to introduce fundamental legislation affecting local taxation, the difficulties, inequities and political pressure which prevent them applying the law as it stands, will continue to present insuperable difficulties.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. Hutchinson: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) was not present at least during the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who told us that although he was not quite 100 per cent. in favour of the Bill, he was not going to oppose it, and then proceeded to limit his criticism to the suggestion that some consideration should be given to those local authorities who have already commenced work on the new valuations. I think we all desire that the Minister should give some consideration to local authorities who can show that expenditure which has already been incurred will be rendered valueless by reason of the postponement of the valuation. The criticisms of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne are of the whole basis of the present system of rating and valuation, a matter which lies entirely outside the scope of the Bill. Not very long ago the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) introduced a Bill for making the basis of rating and valuation, as he thought, more equitable. The result of the discussion on that occasion was that many hon. Members came to the conclusion that the basis which the hon. Member favoured would result in a greatly increased measure of hardship, a greater measure of hardship than that which arises under the present system.
The problem with which the Minister of Health seeks to deal in this Bill is quite a different problem. I should like to join the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) in expressing the thanks of those who represent constituencies where this question has become very actute for the prompt action he has taken in providing for an inquiry into the hardships which it is felt are likely to arise when the new valuation lists come into operation. Let me give


one or two instances of the effect upon assessments in a neighbourhood within the ambit of suburban London of the existing legislation which was originally designed to secure uniformity in valuation. I will take an instance of shop property in a central part of the town where no reconstruction work has been carried out during the period of re-valuation. In 1929, before the new valuation list came into operation, the gross value of this property was £150. The first new valuation list put up the gross value to £333; in the second list it was increased to £419; and last year the county valuation committee, in their search after uniformity in the county, made certain proposals which resulted in the assessment being put up to £515.

Mr. Thorne: They could appeal.

Mr. Hutchinson: They had a right to appeal, but did not do so in the case of this particular property. They did in the case of property quite close, and it was held that the assessment had been rightly made. One might have expected in a neighbourhood where rateable values were rising rapidly that it would have been accompanied by a reduction in the rate poundage, but I will give the actual sums paid by the ratepayer in respect of this particular hereditament. In 1929 the rate payment for the half year was £46. In 1934 at the end of the first period the rate payment was £87. For the first half of 1937 the rate payment was £108, and for the second half of 1937 £134. I could give the House other examples. The point which I want to make is that it may well be that the movement towards uniformity is taking place too rapidly and that the quinquennial period is in fact too short. One has to have regard to the capacity of the ratepayer to meet his engagements, and it may be that when the investigation which the right hon. Gentleman has in view takes place an inquiry will have to be made whether the existing period of five years ought not to be increased, and whether the advance towards uniformity which is generally recognised as essential is not taking place too rapidly at the present time. There is undoubtedly within the rating area of the administrative county of which my constituency forms a part, a feeling that there is no uniformity at present.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that when the investigation takes place, another matter which might be conveniently investigated is whether the machinery set up by the 1925 Act is, in fact, effective in producing uniformity. In the administrative county about which I have made inquiries, because I have special interests in it, there are 43 rating authorities, and I doubt whether the county valuation committee, which was intended by the 1929 Act to co-ordinate and adjust, as far as possible, the valuations made by the rating authorities, are able to coordinate in a satisfactory and effective way the activities of 43 valuation officers within the administrative county. There is a growing feeling that the areas of rating authorities at present are too small. I know that in 1925, when the Act of that year was before the House, there was a feeling that the administrative counties were too big, but I am not sure that that feeling was justified. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman holds his investigation, there will be considered the question of whether the existing machinery for securing uniformity between the rating areas is effective for that purpose. Now, with regard to the proposed investigation itself, I hope that it will be of a very comprehensive character. I think that public feeling will not be satisfied if the investigation is carried out by the Central Valuation Committee. I do not want to present myself to the House as a critic of the Central Valuation Committee, and I hope that no hon. Member will point a finger of reproach at me and emphasise the very useful and valuable work which that body has done in endeavouring to lay down the principles of these valuations; but I feel that the investigation would be better conducted by a body which was completely independent and non-technical and which approached these problems without any preconceived conceptions. I do not think that public feeling on this subject, which is certainly acute, will be satisfied if the investigation is carried out by the Central Valuation Committee. I do not say that because I have not confidence in what they have done, but because I feel that the public want an investigation of a different kind.
The hon. Member for Burslem rather challenged my right hon. Friend to say what he was going to do at the end of the


period of two years, and he argued that after the delay, there would still be the same problem to deal with. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a problem as to whether the burden of rates to-day in many localities is not a great hardship, but I disagree with him about the measures which should be taken to relieve that hardship. If the task which the right hon. Gentleman has set himself is to investigate whether hardship is being caused by reason of the fact that uniformity is not being secured, then at the end of two years, when we have the necessary information, the position will be entirely different. The problem which we have to consider to-day is not whether the burden of rates is too large or not, but whether is is equitably distributed between the ratepayers in a particular area. I accordingly welcome the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, and I believe it will enable him to find a solution for this very difficult and urgent problem.

2.51 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has reason to be satisfied with the reception which this Bill has obtained. As to the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), the hon. Member, as he admitted, did not hear the explanations of the Minister, but he thought that the Bill must be wrong apparently because it came from my right hon. Friend. All I will say to the hon. Member is that I hope he will find time to read my right hon. Friend's speech during the next few days, for I am sure he will find it most delightful week-end reading. I thought that we should not be able to get far in the Debate on the Bill without our seeing the genial countenance of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) beaming down on us, and I was not disappointed. The hon. Member asked the question which I expected him to ask—why not change the whole foundations of the rating system? I would remind the hon. Member that this is a two-Clause Bill, and it would be difficult to do that within that compass. Moreover, it is not the foundations of the rating system that are involved in the issues raised by those who allege that there is hardship. The Bill is

limited to severely practical objects, and I would call the attention of the hon. Member for Burslem to the letter sent to my right hon. Friend by the Central Valuation Committee, in paragraph 4 of which it is stated:
Whilst not expressing any views on the allegation of hardship, the Committee feel, having regard to the number of representations which have been made, that it is very desirable that the allegation should be investigated and that if it is found to be justified, the appropriate remedy should be found.
I think that answers the hon. Member's question. What is the remedy? The hon. Member said that surely after the investigation has been made, it will be necessary again to postpone the valuation. I would remind him that, in the terms of the letter, the first purpose is to discover whether grievances do, in fact, exist.

Mr. Silverman: Obviously.

Mr. Bernays: The hon. Member may say so, but others may take a different view, and that is why we are having the investigation. We have, first of all, to substantiate the allegation that grievances exist before we can consider any remedy. Various hon. Members have said that the postponement will cause hardship to the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) and other hon. Members asked, "What about the expenditure already incurred by local authorities upon revaluation, which is now being wasted?" Admittedly, there are a few local authorities whose lists would have come into force in April, 1938, and obviously they have reached an advanced state of preparation. My right hon. Friend mentioned Oxford, Northampton and parts of Berkshire—

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: And Newbury.

Mr. Bernays: But they really have no cause for complaint. It was they themselves who, after full consideration of the matter applied to my right hon. Friend for an order for postponement. As regards the rest of the country, little if any of the expenditure so far incurred will be wasted. All, or nearly all, will be of value for the purposes of the 1941


Valuation. I give that definite assurance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom. Also, it will enable local authorities to submit to the investigating body, when it is appointed, their considered views upon the matters under investigation. My right hon. Friend cannot agree that compensation should be given for expenditure which, though admittedly made in respect of a valuation that has now been postponed will, in fact, be of value when the valuation does take place in 1941. I cannot add anything on that subject to what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. MacLaren: I asked, should distress and hardship be caused, what remedy can the Minister resort to in law to redress that hardship?

Mr. Bernays: We should have to examine that question when the hardship arose and the case was brought before us. I hope the House will now feel that it has discussed this Bill sufficiently, and that the time has come to give it a Second Reading.

2.58 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown: Do I understand that this committee of investigation is to investigate the working of the present law? There are a great many grievances, especially in the assessment of agricultural property and cottages which are restricted and these ought to be looked into. Will there be an opportunity in the next two years to see that the Central Valuation Committee does look into these matters instead of committing grave injustice in many cases just for the sake of uniformity? I have a case in my own constituency of a man who, under the Rent Restriction Acts, gets a reduced rent

of 1s. 9d. for a cottage and has to go to the Poor Law himself in order to live. Yet the selling value or market value of that house will under the new arrangement increase the assessment very much. Hardships of exactly the same kind arise where people are tied down by the Agricultural Wages Act to 3s. or it may be more now. It ought to be arranged that in the next two years, before we get the new system, these cases will be investigated.

Mr. Bernays: These cases of hardship, of course, will be examined. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to study the speech of my right hon. Friend, in which he very carefully defined the purposes he had in mind.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Major Sir J. Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir T. Edmondson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Three o'Clock, until Monday next, 21st March.